NDB Approaches

[gomntwins]

I don't think we're talking about quite the same thing. You can be "assigned" which runway to land on based on a lot of factors- but if that runway has multiple approaches ( ILS, GPS, VOR, NDB) ATC is not going to require you to use the NDB or VOR if the ILS is working (unless your equipment isn't working, in which case you'd inform them of the problem anyway)

You're right. ATC can't require you to shoot any approach. I have, however, seen them deny a GPS approach repeatedly to a runway when the VOR approach was in use to that same runway. The reason was a strong wind favoring the runway, a lot of people were trying to land, and the GPS approach for that runway is a lot different procedure than the VOR approach (and a lot more time consuming), so approach control just kept saying "unable at this time".

Granted, I've never seen ATC favor an NDB approach if other approaches were available. Nor have I seen them deny an ILS if the ILS was functioning.

We may be talking about different things too. Gotta love the internet, sometimes it's hard to decipher other people's thoughts (and put our own thoughts in writing).

 

[KLB]

You see a lot of NDB approaches up in Canada. If I recall the mins are lower on the NDB than the localizer backcouse approach into CYOW!

 

[CAP_Flyer]

If you don't want to do a NDB approach on the checkride then put an INOP sticker on it. The examiner can't make you fly off a "broken" instrument.

Yeah, I don't think I'm every going to push my luck on that one. The ADF in the plane I used for my Private practial was placarded INOP. The DE made me show her in the aircraft maintenance log where the A&P signed off on the ADF being inop. Guess she's seen that trick before.

I guess I would rather just learn how to fly the NDB approach and know how to do it. It's just another tool in the toolbox.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

You're right. ATC can't require you to shoot any approach. I have, however, seen them deny a GPS approach repeatedly to a runway when the VOR approach was in use to that same runway. The reason was a strong wind favoring the runway, a lot of people were trying to land, and the GPS approach for that runway is a lot different procedure than the VOR approach (and a lot more time consuming), so approach control just kept saying "unable at this time".

Hypothetical question for you about this. If I was unable to do the VOR approach, and told ATC so, would they be willing to give you the GPS, or what would they do? Say I'm in a plane without a VOR radio, would they give you the GPS, or what?

 

[Mike H]

Universal answer: it depends

Failure of a Nav radio or Nav equipment is something you'd have to report to ATC, but if it were inop or not even on board...

However, if your equipment includes an IFR legal GPS, you'd file as a /G anyhow so ATC would already know your primary nav is GPS

If you could ONLY do the GPS approach, they'd have to find a way to accommodate you- Probably be quite a bit of vectoring involved though

 

[Mike H]

I guess I would rather just learn how to fly the NDB approach and know how to do it. It's just another tool in the toolbox.

All the arguing notwithstanding, I really don't understand why some people think NDB approaches are so difficult. They just aren't.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any NDB approaches that aren't straight in, whereas I don't know of any VOR approaches that aren't offset at least slightly from runway heading.

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and not descending below the MDA. Do that and if the visibility is at minimums or better, you'll break out with the runway right in front of you just like a localizer only approach.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

All the arguing notwithstanding, I really don't understand why some people think NDB approaches are so difficult. They just aren't.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any NDB approaches that aren't straight in, whereas I don't know of any VOR approaches that aren't offset at least slightly from runway heading.

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and not descending below the MDA. Do that and if the visibility is at minimums or better, you'll break out with the runway right in front of you just like a localizer only approach.

Lots, and lots of circling NDB approaches out there. Here's a couple that I found, just from about 2 minutes of looking.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0911/09122NB.PDF
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0911/05687NB.PDF

 

[gne in prog]

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any NDB approaches that aren't straight in, whereas I don't know of any VOR approaches that aren't offset at least slightly from runway heading.

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and not descending below the MDA. Do that and if the visibility is at minimums or better, you'll break out with the runway right in front of you just like a localizer only approach.

plenty of them are circle to land. any that are titled "ndb-a", etc. are circling approaches.

here's one-
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0911/00427NA.PDF

 

[tgrayson]

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane.

That's called "homing".

 

[ppragman]

I agree wholeheartedly. If it's in the airplane a pilot should know how to do it. I had to do an NDB approach on my instrument ride.

Off topic, but on: I'd say NDB's are a lot more important than a lot of pilot's like to believe. Personally, I shoot NDB approaches on a fairly regular basis. The airplane's I fly aren't equipped with GPS so that limits us to NDB's into a fair number of airports. I'm also getting sick of everybody wanting to decommission them. If it happens it happens, but I for one am not looking forward to limiting the airports I can and cannot get into because the equipment I fly is not GPS equipped. The closest suitable alternate to my base has an NDB approach that I've shot a number of times. Getting rid of that approach will essentially get rid of my closest and usually best alternate.

NDBs are bullet proof too, they cost almost nothing to operate compared to an ILS or a VOR, and are actually pretty dammed accurate if you know what you're doing. I love NDBs, they're the best thing since sliced bread and the wheel as far as I'm concerned. Best backup to GPS imaginable, and the best alternative to the VOR, hell, you don't even need line of sight to fly a NDB, that's awesome.

 

[Blackhawk]

Why would you be "assigned" a NDB approach in the "real world"?

If the airport you're flying to only has a NDB approach, that's one thing, but I've never heard of ATC telling a pilot what kind of approach to fly rather than the approach that the pilot requests.

" Approach, Bonanza 1234, request GPS-35 Centennial"
"Bonanza 1234, Approach, sorry, you've gotta fly the NDB today"

Not.
Gonna.
Happen.

Happened to me at KAVL for RWY 34 as an airline captain. ILS 34 was OTS, winds were from the north above 10 knots... so it was the NDB 34 or go to our alternate (we did not have GPS at the time).

 

[tgrayson]

NDBs are bullet proof too

Hmmm, as long as your alternator is properly shielded.

 

[ppilot]

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and not descending below the MDA. Do that and if the visibility is at minimums or better, you'll break out with the runway right in front of you just like a localizer only approach.

Really? Are you serious? That's a pretty good way to get dead.

 

[Corporate Pilot]

If you can do an NDB approach you should be able to do any other non precision approach. That being said, years ago I did a lot of them. In the last 10 years I have only did one in actual. Did several in the sim at Simuflite to get my King Air 300/350 rating 3 years ago.

 

[Douglas]

Hypothetical question for you about this. If I was unable to do the VOR approach, and told ATC so, would they be willing to give you the GPS, or what would they do? Say I'm in a plane without a VOR radio, would they give you the GPS, or what?

For you to be in a plane without a nav radio and for you to be legal, you would have to be in a plane that has a WAAS certified GPS. They would have to give you a GPS approach or a GPS Overlay approach and you should have flight planned accordingly, mostly a nonevent.

When filing /G, they can only assume what you have onboard. That will change some day when the ICAO flight plan is forced into effect.

 

[MikeD]

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think there are any NDB approaches that aren't straight in, whereas I don't know of any VOR approaches that aren't offset at least slightly from runway heading.

Covered already, but there are many.

All an NDB approach requires is keeping the ADF needle lined up with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and not descending below the MDA. Do that and if the visibility is at minimums or better, you'll break out with the runway right in front of you just like a localizer only approach.

Might want to ask the deceased crew of the USAF CT-43 that crashed in Dubrovnik, Croatia in 1994 about that one. They may disagree with your belief on that, since that's partly what did them in.

 

[A-300F4-622R]

Happened to me at KAVL for RWY 34 as an airline captain. ILS 34 was OTS, winds were from the north above 10 knots... so it was the NDB 34 or go to our alternate (we did not have GPS at the time).

So... How long did you spend on the ground at your alternate before the weather came up at AVL so you could get in visually?

 

[Mike H]

Might want to ask the deceased crew of the USAF CT-43 that crashed in Dubrovnik, Croatia in 1994 about that one. They may disagree with your belief.

My understanding of that crash is that they weren't where they thought they were on the approach, and flew into terrain. Essentially, they descended below MDA. Feel free to quote where I advocated doing that

 

[MikeD]

My understanding of that crash is that they weren't where they thought they were on the approach, and flew into terrain. Essentially, they descended below MDA. Feel free to quote where I advocated doing that

What you were describing before was homing, if I read it correctly. It wasn't the being below MDA that necessarily killed that crew, it was homing vs tracking with an NDB, not having the minimum number of NDBs required for the approach in the first place, and executing the missed in the wrong direction.

Btw, I edited my initial post since when I reviewed it, it came across as somewhat negative, which wasn't my intent.

 

[MikeD]

I agree that it shouldn't be a mystery and the concepts of an NDB approach are useful and relate to other forms of navigation.

That being said I remember there is/was an NDB approach near my home airport. It sucked pretty bad, the needle swung +/- 20 degrees most of the time. I remember shooting the actual approach with it and basically got vectors to it, the ceilings were still 800-ish so once we broke out we could see the field and navigate to it safely.

Hence why they're non-precision.

Just average out the needle swings.....

This gets back to the whole steam guages/moving map arguement. You have to have pretty good situational awareness and an understanding of navigation to make a NDB approach on a fixed card happen. Give that guy a moving map and I'd say he'd have no problem. Going the opposite direction, forget it.

Of course, if you have an ADF in the plane an NDB approach is fair game!

Fixed card NDB does required SA and a good crosscheck, but isn't impossible IMO...just a little more workload. RMI....now you're good to go.